Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher
Feminism as a political movement in 2017 is rooted in Marxist dogma, and is hostile to classical liberalism. So anyone who is a classical liberal - who believes people should be treated as individuals, tolerate the widest possible scope of opinion and expression, and freedom should usually win out in the trade-off between freedom and security - are correct in identifying feminism as an opponent (along with religious fundamentalism, ultra-right nationalism, and other authoritarian dogmas).
Feminism has come to represent a narrowly dogmatic worldview and political program. There's a reason fewer than 25 per cent of Canadian women self-identify as feminists, even though over 90 per cent believe women should have the same rights and freedoms as men. The ideological underpinning of third and fourth wave feminism simply isn't very convincing or attractive to most women.
|
How can you be
against the succumbing to tribalism, but
for the labelling of feminists as opponents?
They're just a loose group with a common ideology, and as a group they are not homogenous and deserve to be treated as individuals. Isn't it more fruitful to count them as your brothers and sisters than opponents?
So many people preaching individualism and shouting down things like identity politics, and yet so few who can avoid parsing the population into friend and foe. Having an ideology that is contradictory to yours does not make someone your opponent, it's a lesson I myself am trying hard to commit to learning.
I don't see many self-proclaimed "classical liberals" representing liberalism very well. They just seem to represent another side of the constantly bickering coin, where the response to major issues is always worth fughting about more than the issue itself.
It is possible to spread the values you find important without resorting to stuff like "universities are ######ed" and "feminism is basically nazism," because you only succeed in convincing people who already agree with you.
Talking about what's wrong with someone else's position isn't an efficient way of spreading what's right about your position. The natural, logical truth seems to find a way through, despite the pendulum swinging past it a few times along the way. Preaching the value of the Middle seems a lot more effective than labelling opponents and talking about what's "wrong" with everyone else.